DNR wavering on canned hunts

September 03, 2006

If you thought the canned hunting controversy was over, think again. Since taking over as Department of Natural Resources Director in January 2005, Kyle Hupfer has stood steadfast on his crusade to rid Indiana of high-fence hunting. He's taken on legislators and the canned hunt industry with more determination than most directors. And he was successful. Last March, Hupfer convinced the Indiana Natural Resources Commission to ban canned hunting in Indiana, immediately, joining 17 other states that prohibit similar practices of trophy hunting in fenced areas. The Attorney General approved the new rule and Gov. Mitch Daniels signed off on it in June. Case closed, right? Not anymore. A lawsuit filed by one high fence operator apparently has called the DNR's bluff. Hupfer has negotiated a proposal that would permit some high fence ranchers to stay in business for at least another 10 years. "I've said all along that I wanted to eliminate this practice in the state of Indiana," Hupfer said Friday. "But I'm not willing to risk the financial well being of the Division of Fish and Wildlife when I can end it all in 10 years." Hupfer pointed out that the rule still prevents growth in high fence operations and exempts the dozen or so specified hunting ranches that were operating prior to the rule. Strangely enough, the lawsuit filed against the DNR is based on a 1999 letter from a conservation officer to the rancher telling him he could sell off trophy hunts on his property. But that was long before the DNR's new rule banned the practice. Needless to say, some sportsmen and conservation groups are aghast and feel betrayed by Hupfer and the DNR. The Indiana Wildlife Federation has sent a letter to Gov. Daniels urging him to reject the proposed settlement and defend the rule he signed two months ago. The Federation asks its constituency to bombard the Governor's office with similar pleas. The first question in everyone's mind is how could the DNR's legal team -- and Hupfer, who is an attorney by trade -- overlook the potential of a lawsuit that could derail a rule that the agency has been fighting for several years? Well, here's part of the reason. Powerful Farm Bureau lobbyists have jumped in behind canned hunt operations. That's because operators purchase many of their trophy animals from deer farmers, many of whom are Farm Bureau members. Raising deer as a livestock is legal, and banning canned hunts would adversely affect deer farmers. Without a settlement, Hupfer said, nothing could prevent the legislature from legalizing canned hunting altogether. "The House already has shown its support for high-fence hunting and the Senate could easily get behind it if we don't get a settlement before the legislature convenes," he said. "And if we lose this lawsuit, we lose control over all wildlife. The result is we wind up with proliferation of canned hunts throughout the state." IWF Executive Director John Goss wants the DNR to fight the lawsuit, and if a settlement is deemed necessary, shorten the extension and tighten the restrictions. Goss, you may recall, was Hupfer's predecessor and one of the best DNR Directors Indiana had seen in years. "Let's enforce this rule into the fall, and if we're going to allow canned hunts, at least regulate them with strict guidelines," Goss offered. Conservationists fear the proposed settlement allows the grand fathered hunting operations to do just about anything they want to do inside their gates. Some insist political pressure from the governor's office has forced Hupfer to back down from the rule he defended so adamantly a year ago. He denies it. "As a hunter, I think (canned hunting) is a loathsome, unethical practice," said Hupfer. "But it's a tough issue with people on both sides. The Farm Bureau, some hunters and citizens are fine with it. I'm just not willing to risk the Fish and Wildlife Fund over an ethical issue." Louie Stout Commentary